# Why do military retirees collect retirement......



## Misfit

Immediately and everybody else has to wait until 65 to collect?


----------



## glhs837

Because of the sacrifices involved in being active duty military they they are not compensated for during the time they serve.


----------



## desertrat

glhs837 said:


> Because of the sacrifices involved in being active duty military they they are not compensated for during the time they serve.



Right and 20 years in the military is a long time as a civilian. Plus we don't need a bunch of 60 year olds in the armed services, so this is the payoff. And well worth it.


----------



## desertrat

Misfit said:


> Immediately and everybody else has to wait until 65 to collect?



What about Civil Service?


----------



## The_Twisted_Ear

Misfit said:


> Immediately and everybody else has to wait until 65 to collect?



You are kidding - right?  How many_ working_ civilian's can be ordered to another country in 24 hours?  How many civilian's can risk their retirement for talking back to a superior?  How many civilian's can be shipped across the US to another work location and can't decline? Considering this and other things (i.e., protecting YOU from enemies that want to kill us, etc.) I haven't mentioned - they should be able to retire early - period.  I can't believe you even asked that question...


----------



## Misfit

The_Twisted_Ear said:


> You are kidding - right?  How many_ working_ civilian's can be ordered to another country in 24 hours?  How many civilian's can risk their retirement for talking back to a superior?  How many civilian's can be shipped across the US to another work location and can't decline? Considering this and other things (i.e., protecting YOU from enemies that want to kill us, etc.) I haven't mentioned - they should be able to retire early - period.  I can't believe you even asked that question...



Stand down sparky. I asked because I didn't know. Most of the civil service I know are retired military and aren't concerened about the upcoming furlough because their civil service job is their second career but others I know don't have that retirement to fall back on. Do police and fireman collect at 65 also?


----------



## Toxick

The_Twisted_Ear said:


> You are kidding - right? How many_ working_ civilian's can be ordered to another country in 24 hours? How many civilian's can risk their retirement for talking back to a superior? How many civilian's can be shipped across the US to another work location and can't decline? Considering this and other things (i.e., protecting YOU from enemies that want to kill us, etc.) I haven't mentioned - they should be able to retire early - period. I can't believe you even asked that question...


 

Sphincter sore today?


----------



## desertrat

Misfit said:


> Stand down sparky. I asked because I didn't know. Most of the civil service I know are retired military and aren't concerened about the upcoming furlough because their civil service job is their second career but others I know don't have that retirement to fall back on.* Do police and fireman collect at 65 also*?



I don't think so, but it's not quite the same. They don't spend months out of country getting shot at, they get it right here. But at least they are home at night.


----------



## Radiant1

desertrat said:


> I don't think so, but it's not quite the same. They don't spend months out of country getting shot at, they get it right here. But at least they are home at night.



Just a friendly reminder, not all military members are in danger zones getting shot at. I wonder what percentage are actually in such zones and do they get extra pay? It seems to me that a soldier on the ground in Afghanistan should get more than the cook at the mess hall?


----------



## The_Twisted_Ear

Misfit said:


> Stand down sparky. I asked because I didn't know.  Most of the civil service I know are retired military and aren't  concerened about the upcoming furlough because their civil service job  is their second career but others I know don't have that retirement to  fall back on. Do police and fireman collect at 65 also?



Sorry - you hit a nerve.  Everytime their is a budget cut - they go after retired military.   I have watched military benefits get chipped away.  Most of the politician's cutting military pay never served a day protecting our great country.  I am sure someone will jump in shortly but Police and Fire employee's (both risk their lives as well) - I believe they do get a form of early retirement (at least they use to!).



Toxick said:


> Sphincter sore today?


Are you talking about my orifice?


----------



## GWguy

Misfit said:


> Immediately and everybody else has to wait until 65 to collect?



Says who?  I'm getting ready to retire and can collect my retirement bennies right away.  If you're talking about Social Security, THAT doesn't kick in until 65.  I can collect on my pension when I retire and turn 55.


----------



## Toxick

The_Twisted_Ear said:


> Are you talking about my orifice?


 


Yeah - You seemed excessively irritable in your response, and I was wondering if perhaps a swollen and angry balloon-knot may have been responsible. I was going to suggest some Tucks for quick and soothing relief.


----------



## The_Twisted_Ear

Toxick said:


> Yeah - You seemed excessively irritable in your response, and I was wondering if perhaps a swollen and angry balloon-knot may have been responsible. I was going to suggest some Tucks for quick and soothing relief.



Yea, the topic is a hot button for me.   It seems like everytime our politician's want to save money - they try to kill early retirements for our military.


----------



## chawk

While not the most eloquent reply, I understand your frustration. Many people do not understand the level of commitment required to serve 20 years in the military. 

Some are correct in asserting that not everyone is put in harms way; however, members of the military are available for duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, everyone is subject to deployment at any time to meet the countrys requirements. That coupled with the constant PCSs, TDYs, field deployments, 16+ hour days (or more), multiple combat deployments, life in austere living conditions, and in some cases extremely hazardous jobs and duty assignements not to mention a challenged homelife, are some of the primary reasons that a 20 year retirement is offered to the military.

There are many law enforcement agencies that offer a 20 year pension too-for many of the same reasons that the military does.


----------



## CrashTest

I've asked here before why the family members don't get a pension too.  My dad got to cruise the Med and visit cool places while my mom and sisters were back living in $hitholes in some foreign country (against our will) and like the vast mojority who serve, nobody ever shot a bullet at my dad in 31 years of service.


----------



## dan0623_2000

CrashTest said:


> I've asked here before why the family members don't get a pension too.  My dad got to cruise the Med and visit cool places while my mom and sisters were back living in $hitholes in some foreign country (against our will) and like the vast mojority who serve, nobody ever shot a bullet at my dad in 31 years of service.[/QUOT
> 
> Where was your dad's ship home ported when he was cruising the cool ports in the Med and you were living in a foreign country?


----------



## oldman

I retired in 1982 as an E-6 which at the time provided me with roughly about 
$4,000 (take home) a year.  That equated to me having to find a second job or not have much of a life.  Military retirement does not necessarily mean what some may believe.


----------



## Radiant1

oldman said:


> I retired in 1982 as an E-6 which at the time provided me with roughly about
> $4,000 (take home) a year.  That equated to me having to find a second job or not have much of a life.  Military retirement does not necessarily mean what some may believe.



Of course not, but it's a nice additional income during your actual retirement coupled with social security and perhaps a 401k from your second career, which likely came easy to you having gained skills in the military and corporations getting write offs for hiring veterans. I assume you still also had the benefits of shopping on base and health care?


----------



## CrashTest

dan0623_2000 said:


> Where was your dad's ship home ported when he was cruising the cool ports in the Med and you were living in a foreign country?



In a place my mom and sisters didn't want to be.


----------



## DoWhat

CrashTest said:


> In a place my mom and sisters didn't want to be.



They could of stayed in CONUS if they wanted too.


----------



## oldman

Radiant1 said:


> Of course not, but it's a nice additional income during your actual retirement coupled with social security and perhaps a 401k from your second career, which likely came easy to you having gained skills in the military and corporations getting write offs for hiring veterans. I assume you still also had the benefits of shopping on base and health care?



And you are correct.  I did land a federal job based on skills I learned in the Navy.  When I retired from that I paid back $17,000 to get my miliary time converted to my federal time thus getting one retirement check worth more than the two would have been.  I have been receiving a small social security check for 6 or 7 years now which is nice throw away money for me.  Although I still have the benefits of base shopping and health care they are only good as long as one lives in an area one can reach.


----------



## Monello

> Why do military retirees collect retirement......


Because we can!

Retirement pay is only calculated on BASE PAY.  There are also several other pays depending on the job being performed.  If the food and housing allowances were included in the retirement figure, then the monthly check would be significantly larger.

But if you think it's 50% of TOTAL pay, you'd be mistaken.  Also it seems that, for certain jobs, military pay lags behind the private sector.  Junior enlisted are paid a pittance while doing most of the highly undesirable jobs.

I'm getting close to the point where I will have been retired longer than I was on active duty.  Surprisingly, if I live long enough, I could possible earn more in retirement pay than I earned while on active duty.


----------



## Monello

The military is a young person's business.  Not many folks in their 50s & 60s can stand up to the rigors of military life.


----------



## CrashTest

DoWhat said:


> They could of stayed in CONUS if they wanted too.



For 8 years?  

Not getting married is another option.


----------



## JoeR

Radiant1 said:


> Of course not, but it's a nice additional income during your actual retirement coupled with social security and perhaps a 401k from your second career, which likely came easy to you having gained skills in the military and corporations getting write offs for hiring veterans. I assume you still also had the benefits of shopping on base and health care?



You're right about it being a nice little additional income. Last year I received a little over $16,500. in my military retirement (retired in 99). But you also have to remember a lot of retirees start their second careers around the age of 40. That's what I did. Also I was unable to go back civil service in my military career field (Firefighter) when I retired. In their minds I was to old to continue to do the same job I did for 20 years on active duty. So when I started with the airport authority as a firefighter, I was that far behind so to speak when I started my 457 plan with them, as opposed to someone that had already been working there and contributing those extra years. I look at it this way. What I will lose due not being able to work there as long a someone who started at 18 or 20 years old, I'm already getting and will be combining the two when I retire for good.


----------



## Radiant1

Monello said:


> I'm getting close to the point where I will have been retired longer than I was on active duty.  Surprisingly, if I live long enough, I could possible earn more in retirement pay than I earned while on active duty.



When I read that I thought that perhaps some cuts to certain aspects of military retirement isn't such a bad idea. There's something about you receiving more in retirement than you ever did while active that rubs me the wrong way. Not sure why though.



JoeR said:


> But you also have to remember a lot of retirees start their second careers around the age of 40... So when I started with the airport authority as a firefighter, I was that far behind so to speak when I started my 457 plan with them, as opposed to someone that had already been working there and contributing those extra years.



Good point. I didn't exactly think of that.


----------



## tommyjo

Misfit said:


> Stand down sparky. I asked because I didn't know. Most of the civil service I know are retired military and aren't concerened about the upcoming furlough because their civil service job is their second career but others I know don't have that retirement to fall back on. Do police and fireman collect at 65 also?



Depends on the jurisdiction...PG Police can go on pension after 20...but they are basically military police...

teachers mostly have an age and service requirement...30 years and age 55 for example...similar to fed civilians


----------



## Bann

Misfit said:


> Immediately and everybody else has to wait until 65 to collect?



Actually, a NAVY military retirement pay is after 30 years.  Between 20 & 30 they are actually not "retired" but are transferred to the Fleet Reserve for 10 years, and receive retainer pay.  They technically can be called back to active duty for years...



> For Navy and Marine Corps members, you are considered to be a "retired member" for classification purposes if you are an enlisted member with over 30 years service, or a warrant or commissioned officer.
> 
> *Enlisted Navy and Marine Corps members with less than 30 years service are transferred to the Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve and their pay is referred to as "retainer pay".
> *
> Air Force and Army members with over 20 years service are all classified as retired, and receive retired pay.
> 
> *When a Navy or Marine Corps member completes 30 years, including time on the retired rolls in receipt of retainer pay, the Fleet Reserve status is changed to retired status, and they begin receiving retired pay.
> 
> *Don't become confused. The above is for information purposes only. *The law treats retired pay and retainer pay exactly the same way.*
> 
> Military retirement pay is unlike civilian retirement pay systems. First and foremost, there is no "vesting" in the military retirement system. There is no special retirement accounts, no matching funds provision, no interest. You either qualify for retirement by honorably serving over 20 years in the military, or you do not. If you are discharged from the military with 19 years, 11 months, and 27 days of service, for example, you do not qualify for retirement pay (other than a few "early retirement" programs, which were designed to reduce the size of the armed forces).
> 
> Another significant difference between military retirement, and civilian retirement, is that* a retired military member can be recalled to active duty. According to Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1352.1:
> *
> *Involuntary Order to Active Duty. The Secretary of a Military Department may order any retired Regular member, retired Reserve member who has completed at least 20 years of active military service, or a member of the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve to active duty without the member's consent at any time to perform duties deemed necessary in the interests of national defense in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 683* (reference (b)). This includes the authority to order a retired member who is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to active duty to facilitate the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction under Section 302(a) of reference (b). A retired member may not be involuntarily ordered to active duty solely for obtaining court-martial jurisdiction over the member.
> 
> *In all honesty, however, the chances that a military retiree would be recalled to active duty after age 60, or who have been retired for more than five years, are slim.* DOD categorizes retirees into three categories, with category I as the most likely to be recalled to active duty, and category III as the least likely. Individuals over the age of 60 are in category III, which is the same category as individuals with disabilities. Recall of category III retires is extremely unlikely. According to DOD, the categories are:


Understanding Military Retirement Pay


----------



## Blister

Another point not made is that you have to have 20 years of service to collect a dime. In other Federally Insured pension plans you are vested after 5 years of service. If you are honorably discharged after 5, 10, or 15 years of military service you get nothing. No pension, unless you have disabilitry.


----------



## Bann

GWguy said:


> Says who?  I'm getting ready to retire and can collect my retirement bennies right away.  If you're talking about Social Security, THAT doesn't kick in until 65.  I can collect on my pension when I retire and turn 55.



Exactly. Most companies that have retirement plans only require 20 (or 30) years.


----------



## Blister

Bann said:


> Actually, a NAVY military retirement pay is after 30 years.  Between 20 & 30 they are actually not "retired" but are transferred to the Fleet Reserve for 10 years, and receive retainer pay.  They technically can be called back to active duty for years...
> 
> 
> Understanding Military Retirement Pay



Sorry I was typing when this post explained it better than I did.


----------



## GWguy

Bann said:


> Exactly. Most companies that have retirement plans only require 20 (or 30) years.



For us, it's a 'magic number' of 85, years of service plus age.  I made that 3 years ago.


----------



## Bann

dan0623_2000 said:


> CrashTest said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked here before why the family members don't get a pension too.  My dad got to cruise the Med and visit cool places while my mom and sisters were back living in* $hitholes in some foreign country (against our will)* and like the vast mojority who serve, nobody ever shot a bullet at my dad in 31 years of service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was your dad's ship home ported when he was cruising the cool ports in the Med and you were living in a foreign country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.   I loved living in Italy!!   I know for a fact the living conditions were not what they were in the US.  But it was a different time and it was what it was.  :shrug:  I lived there from 1967-1972 and we didn't have a phone in the house for all those years.  We also didn't take a TV set because  - - well - - it was before satellite TV was possible and back then you were advised that they only had foreign TV.  We did get to see TV sets at friends' houses, but it was in Italian.  OMG!  We 3 kids didn't have a TV for 5-1/2 years!
> 
> Still - I positively loved living there and if I could go back & change anything in my life at all - I would probably change a few things.  But NOT my 5-1/2 years living in Italy.  My family loved it there and I cannot wait to go back & visit some day when the Things are done getting growed up.
> 
> </soapbox>
Click to expand...


----------



## Bann

GWguy said:


> For us, it's a 'magic number' of 85, years of service plus age.  I made that 3 years ago.


----------



## edinsomd

Long hours. Low pay. Family separations. Living in conditions below that afforded to inmates in a penitentiary.  In my case, the opportunity to be crushed, burned, or drowned to death, maybe at the same time!  All to protect and serve our country.

I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

That's why.


----------



## Misfit

*What about military disability?*

I'm taking my own tread off topic but can anyone enlighten me on military disability? Two of my friends have a service related disability that didn’t happen because of their military service. A friend of mine is collecting 60% for a hereditary thyroid condition and another friend gets 30% because of knee problems from a broken leg in HS. They laugh about how they got over on the system. Both of them are retired so does that mean they collect retirement & disability all while working a civil service job that’s being threatened with furlough because of government overspending?


----------



## Bann

Misfit said:


> I'm taking my own tread off topic but can anyone enlighten me on military disability? Two of my friends have a service related disability that didn’t happen because of their military service. A friend of mine is collecting 60% for a hereditary thyroid condition and another friend gets 30% because of knee problems from a broken leg in HS. They laugh about how they got over on the system. Both of them are retired so does that mean they collect retirement & disability all while working a civil service job that’s being threatened with furlough because of government overspending?



Not *exactly* sure, but while a service member is on active duty - anything that happens to them is considered service related.  It's the way it is.  I don't know why they're laughing about getting over, unless they think they are.  But basically, you are the military's 24/7 - they pretty much own you while you are in.  

I'm sure someone has a better explanation, and I can't find a link to back me up right now - so that's all I've got!   

Edit:  From the sounds of it - the problems with the thyroid and the knees _developed_ while on Active Duty, so that's why it would be considered as service related.


----------



## somdwatch

*I can understand the interest*

However, their are bigger retirement bennies that should be the focus.

Like taxes, they should be flat rate. 

Civil Servant 80% of their pay (under the old system) for 35 year in a normal 9-5 office job. Oh they have a union...

Retired Military 50% for 20 years if they were injured while on AD they would have a disability and wouldn't be collecting retirement.

Member of the House/Senate 100% retirement for life.

I feel no one should be entitled to more than 50% for life. If you lived your life well and stayed in one geographic area you should be set. 
OOPs the military can't do that either, let's move every 3-5 years and establish another mortgage.

Just saying why do we have entitlements at all.  If you made bad choices about your career/life it's only you who should be held accountable.


----------



## bulldog

Misfit said:


> I'm taking my own tread off topic but can anyone enlighten me on military disability? Two of my friends have a service related disability that didn’t happen because of their military service. A friend of mine is collecting 60% for a hereditary thyroid condition and another friend gets 30% because of knee problems from a broken leg in HS. They laugh about how they got over on the system. Both of them are retired so does that mean they collect retirement & disability all while working a civil service job that’s being threatened with furlough because of government overspending?



It depends on the level of disability. If less than 50%, the amount that you receive from the VA in disability pay is deducted from your retirement pay dollar for dollar. You only receive the advantage of not paying taxes on it. If disability is greater than 50%, no deduction from your retirement pay; you get all of both.
Not really sure why that is.


----------



## Misfit

somdwatch said:


> Civil Servant 80% of their pay (under the old system) for 35 year in a normal 9-5 office job. Oh they have a union...




   I've heard some of the older civil service folks talk about this. 80% is a lot. Can military even collect 80%?


----------



## Ken King

somdwatch said:


> However, their are bigger retirement bennies that should be the focus.
> 
> Like taxes, they should be flat rate.
> 
> *Civil Servant 80% of their pay (under the old system) for 35 year in a normal 9-5 office job.* Oh they have a union...
> 
> Retired Military 50% for 20 years if they were injured while on AD they would have a disability and wouldn't be collecting retirement.
> 
> *Member of the House/Senate 100% retirement for life.*
> 
> I feel no one should be entitled to more than 50% for life. If you lived your life well and stayed in one geographic area you should be set.
> OOPs the military can't do that either, let's move every 3-5 years and establish another mortgage.
> 
> Just saying why do we have entitlements at all.  If you made bad choices about your career/life it's only you who should be held accountable.


I see you believe in a “well I was told” world.  A 35-year Fed retiree, under CSRS, doesn’t get 80% retirement.  For 35 years the individual would get 7.5% for the first 5 years of service, 8.75% for the next 5 years, and then 50% for the final 25 years for a total of 66.25% of their high 3 average pay.

Another misconvception of yours is your statement regarding Congressional retirement.  Senate and House members fall under the Fed retirement system and none receive 100% retirement as it is calculated exactly the same as a Fed employees retirement is (variations exist depending whether the person is covered by CSRS of FERS), but no one gets 100% and I challenge you to show otherwise.


----------



## Pete

Misfit said:


> I'm taking my own tread off topic but can anyone enlighten me on military disability? Two of my friends have a service related disability that didn’t happen because of their military service. A friend of mine is collecting 60% for a hereditary thyroid condition and another friend gets 30% because of knee problems from a broken leg in HS. They laugh about how they got over on the system. Both of them are retired so does that mean they collect retirement & disability all while working a civil service job that’s being threatened with furlough because of government overspending?



There is a lot of gamesmanship involved with the VA and disability for retired military.  That said I don't see how a heredetary thyroid is "service connected" so he can get disability.


----------



## MMM_donuts

Misfit said:


> I'm taking my own tread off topic but can anyone enlighten me on military disability? Two of my friends have a service related disability that didn’t happen because of their military service. A friend of mine is collecting 60% for a hereditary thyroid condition and another friend gets 30% because of knee problems from a broken leg in HS. They laugh about how they got over on the system. Both of them are retired so does that mean they collect retirement & disability all while working a civil service job that’s being threatened with furlough because of government overspending?



There are people out there that manipulate the system to benefit themselves. Just because they are in the military doesn't mean everyone always does the right thing. When I was in, there were trends of using unemployment as soon as you got out (veterans, not retired folk) to use as a vacation because you'd get something very close to your military pay for 6 months or more.  And then there was claiming some things on your exit physical that the VA can't really prove or deny so you could get a disability check. Like tinnitus (ringing in your ears). 

The people that did that sort of stuff usually said that the military owed it to them for all the BS they'd had to put up with.


----------



## Misfit

Pete said:


> There is a lot of gamesmanship involved with the VA and disability for retired military.  That said I don't see how a heredetary thyroid is "service connected" so he can get disability.




I don’t get it either. I collect 10% and if the gubberment wants to keep that for the greater good, it’s all theirs but my 10% injury was done at work while on active duty not like another guy I know who laid down his motorcycle and now collects. I’ve been hearing for the last month sequestration this and sequestration that. It seems to me it’s becoming just another case of entitlement.


----------



## Lurk

Pete said:


> There is a lot of gamesmanship involved with the VA and disability for retired military.  That said I don't see how a heredetary thyroid is "service connected" so he can get disability.



Having worked the military medical system for 30 years (including at the Secretary of Defense level) I can shed some light on this.

If a potential recruit has a pre-existing condition (familial thyroid disease, broken leg in high school, high-refraction visual problems, etc.) and is otherwise eligible for recruitment (legal, educational, moral, whatever) the Service secretary can waive the pre-existing condition and the member can be recruited/commissioned if that condition is healed or inactive (not expected to reactivate).  If that condition is aggravated (or becomes symptomatic) during the term of service, it is considered a "Service-connected-or-aggravated condition" for which a disability can be levied.  If the Service levies the disability, the VA won't (you cannot draw two disability checks for the same disability).  If the Service doesn't levy a disability the VA has the option of evaluating the member at the time of retirement (medical or longevity) and assessing a level of disability.

The leniency the VA pays for disability determination is subject to political attention.  After the Viet Nam war there was high interest in helping the veterans, so a lot were granted high-rate disabilities.  Over time the interest waned (like we see beginnings in the Administration right now) and it gets harder to get a VA disability.  Right now we're coming off a high-interest, easy-to-get VA disability (which is why the VA cannot keep up with demand).

Getting a high rating from the VA doesn't make you rich (contrary to the opinions of some on this forum).  I'm personally 60% disabled but I receive less than 1% of what my annual salary was on active duty.  Granted, Federal income tax is not collected on that.  Some states do tax that as regular income (you know, the ones with high structural deficits in their state budgets?)

Oh, by the way.  With 30 years of service, and 60% disability, I don't have a retirement job.  I am living on my Service retirement pension, VA pittance and NO Social security for two more years though I am over 65 now.


----------



## somdwatch

Ken King said:


> I see you believe in a “well I was told” world.  A 35-year Fed retiree, under CSRS, doesn’t get 80% retirement.  For 35 years the individual would get 7.5% for the first 5 years of service, 8.75% for the next 5 years, and then 50% for the final 25 years for a total of 66.25% of their high 3 average pay.
> 
> Another misconvception of yours is your statement regarding Congressional retirement.  Senate and House members fall under the Fed retirement system and none receive 100% retirement as it is calculated exactly the same as a Fed employees retirement is (variations exist depending whether the person is covered by CSRS of FERS), but no one gets 100% and I challenge you to show otherwise.



Well I was told, by a retired federal employee.  Is CSRS the new system or the old system?
When a retired civil servant can make 100% of what they were making as a GS XX on 50% of the time after retirement, WHY ARE WE FOOTING A RETIREMENT, that should have been their investments (responibility) when earning a salary while employed. 

Regardless of how I know about it, we need to modify it. If it's fair across all retirement plans provided for by the govt, we need to reduce it to avoid becoming the next Greece. 

We shouldn't focus on any one group, but ALL retirements provided by government at any level. Instant savings.

The bottom line even at 66% it's to generous for doing your job.


----------



## Ken King

somdwatch said:


> Well I was told, by a retired federal employee.  Is CSRS the new system or the old system?
> When a retired civil servant can make 100% of what they were making as a GS XX on 50% of the time after retirement, WHY ARE WE FOOTING A RETIREMENT, that should have been their investments (responibility) when earning a salary while employed.


CSRS is the old system.  Footing a retirement?  That was a Fed employee investment system.  The employee paid 7%, 7.5% or 8% into the system throughout their career and are just drawing off of that.



> Regardless of how *I know about it*, we need to modify it. If it's fair across all retirement plans provided for by the govt, we need to reduce it to avoid becoming the next Greece.


But it seems you don't know anything about it, besides that system was reduced and replaced with FERS.



> We shouldn't focus on any one group, but ALL retirements provided by government at any level. Instant savings.


You're funny.



> The bottom line even at 66% it's to generous for doing your job.


Really?  What would be generous enough for you?


----------



## letmetellyou

The_Twisted_Ear said:


> You are kidding - right?  .  I can't believe you even asked that question...



You're kidding right?



> How many_ working_ civilian's can be ordered to another country in 24 hours? Many How many civilian's can risk their retirement for talking back to a superior? Many How many civilian's can be shipped across the US to another work location and can't decline? Due to financial consideratiions many!Considering this and other things (i.e., protecting YOU from enemies that want to kill us, etc.) I haven't mentioned - they should be able to retire early - period



Having responded to your quote, there are many people who are in the same boat as the military.  They are not exclusive to the things you mentioned.  

However, what the military members do have exclusive to them and not other American workers is people in the military can and often do get ordered to work extensive hours and not be compensated for them.  People in the military can and often do get held in a certain location and can't leave without the possibility of being criminally charged for disobeying someone.  Members of the military are compensated at a far lower than their civilian counterparts.

But they are not the only people who can collect a pension prior to 65?  I don't even know where the op is getting that.  Police officers, firemen, truck drivers, warehouse workers, and the list goes on and on collect pensions prior to 65.


----------



## abcxyz

Bottom line is because that is what they were promised as part of their overall compensation package. Deferred compensation.


----------



## BernieP

desertrat said:


> What about Civil Service?



What about it?
Under the old (CSRS) program you had to meet certain criteria - I believe you needed a number of years of service plus minimum age of 55.  If you didn't meet those criteria annutity is reduced 2% for each year (or part of a year) you are short.
CSRS and Military retirement I believe are both taxable income.
The joke on civil service is that with the new method of calculating the retirees tax exempt portion, it's like 95 percent taxable as they now ammortize it over your expected (cough) life.  The other payback is that most retired civil service workers will pay into social security.  They will meet the requirements for quarters but will never collect a dime as a law was enacted in 1986 that provided for a dollar for dollar offset.  The concept of a federal retiree recieving both an annuity AND a social security check was not politically acceptable.  Military retirees can collect both.

FWIW, publics sector / public safety employees typicall retire after 20 years of service as well - that would be police and fire fighters.  Beyond risk, I think you will find most have some physical disability.  I would bet most former military have been exposed to chemicals / materials that are hazardous to their health and the number 1 problem is hearing loss form noise exposure.
Hey, we are getting better at it but the government / military is far behind the requirements the government (OSHA) imposes on private industry.


----------



## czygvtwkr

Misfit said:


> I don’t get it either. I collect 10% and if the gubberment wants to keep that for the greater good, it’s all theirs but my 10% injury was done at work while on active duty not like another guy I know who laid down his motorcycle and now collects. I’ve been hearing for the last month sequestration this and sequestration that. It seems to me it’s becoming just another case of entitlement.



I work with someone who has a whole list of ailments he claims are service related,  like his 400lb weight,  high blood pressure, bad knees and erectile disfunction,  he said his ED is what got him the final 10% to be at 100.  The worst part is I had to listen to his phone calls to the VA about his ED without laughing.


----------



## Monello

Radiant1 said:


> When I read that I thought that perhaps some cuts to certain aspects of military retirement isn't such a bad idea. There's something about you receiving more in retirement than you ever did while active that rubs me the wrong way. Not sure why though.



What sort of cuts did you have in mind?  I'd be all for a certain % reduction provided government handouts (not entitlements), Welfare, WIC, TANF, Section 8, etc. also be cut the same percentage.

And while we are at it why not change the rule that says no GS can ever be fired.  As a prior 'beltway bandit' I saw plenty of contractors let go, but never 1 civil servant axed.  I've worked with several GS types that when they took the day off, productivity went up.


----------



## Radiant1

Monello said:


> What sort of cuts did you have in mind?  I'd be all for a certain % reduction provided government handouts (not entitlements), Welfare, WIC, TANF, Section 8, etc. also be cut the same percentage.
> 
> And while we are at it why not change the rule that says no GS can ever be fired.  As a prior 'beltway bandit' I was plenty of contractors let go, but never 1 civil servant axed.  I've worked with several GS types that when they took the day off, productivity went up.



All of the above! I'm all for cuts across the board, including your retirement. I'm glad to see you say youl'd be willing to take a reduction. It seems that the majority of people who are reliant on the gov't in one way, shape, form or another are quick to cry "Take theirs, not mine!" So, good on ya.


----------



## vince77

I'm civilian retired at 54 and 11 months (took a months leave) to reach 55.  Retired under CSRS with 30 years 8 months.  Also worked 16 hours a week at the post office when I was in High School which they gave me 2.5 years of full time credit for...so I left at a little over 80% when I retired.   Pension's a little more than 100K a year.   I was fortunate...been retired 6 years


----------



## philibusters

desertrat said:


> What about Civil Service?



It depends on your age.  For people born after 1970 to get the full retirement you have to be 62.  That said people can get an early retirement about 5 years earlier then their full retirement eligibility age, but they will take a reduced retirement for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Vince

CrashTest said:


> For 8 years?
> 
> Not getting married is another option.


 And if you do get married, getting a divorce will lose you up to 50% of your retirement pay...FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!!


----------



## DoWhat

vince77 said:


> Pension's a little more than 100K a year.   I was fortunate...been retired 6 years


Damn, did you retire as a SES'er?


----------



## Radiant1

vince77 said:


> I'm civilian retired at 54 and 11 months (took a months leave) to reach 55.  Retired under CSRS with 30 years 8 months.  Also worked 16 hours a week at the post office when I was in High School which they gave me 2.5 years of full time credit for...so I left at a little over 80% when I retired.   *Pension's a little more than 100K a year.  * I was fortunate...been retired 6 years



I'm not trying to denigrate your hard work, but I find this ridiculous. Are my taxes seriously going towards paying 100 grand/year for your retirement!? Would you be like Monello and consider taking a reduction if there were cuts to entitlements as well?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it's situations like this that make some people think there is another side to "entitlements" when someone works for the gov't all their life and doesn't necessarily work any harder than someone in the private sector but seems to reap greater benefits from it.


----------



## CrashTest

Radiant1 said:


> I'm not trying to denigrate your hard work, but I find this ridiculous. Are my taxes seriously going towards paying 100 grand/year for your retirement!? Would you be like Monello and consider taking a reduction if there were cuts to entitlements as well?
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it's situations like this that make some people think there is another side to "entitlements" when someone works for the gov't all their life and doesn't necessarily work any harder than someone in the private sector but seems to reap greater benefits from it.



It would take about 7-8 people working full time and earning 100K themselves just to pay that 1 person's retirement assuming that 100% of their taxes went to pay that retirement and nothing else.

New roads and bridges anyone?  Don't hold your breath.


----------



## DoWhat

Radiant1 said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it's situations like this that make some people think there is another side to "entitlements" when someone works for the gov't all their life and doesn't necessarily work any harder than someone in the private sector but seems to reap greater benefits from it.


Sorry, but that is one stupid a$$ comment.


----------



## CrashTest

DoWhat said:


> Damn, did you retire as a SES'er?




My father retired O-6 with 31 years of *sacrafice* and it's far more than he gets.


----------



## DoWhat

CrashTest said:


> My father retired O-6 with 31 years of *sacrafice* and it's far more than he gets.



I will have over 40 yrs government service when I retire, but it will be under the new government retirement system. Which is mainly based on your 401K.


----------



## Ken King

vince77 said:


> I'm civilian retired at 54 and 11 months (took a months leave) to reach 55.  Retired under CSRS with 30 years 8 months.  Also worked 16 hours a week at the post office when I was in High School which they gave me 2.5 years of full time credit for...so I left at a *little over 80%* when I retired.   Pension's a little more than 100K a year.   I was fortunate...been retired 6 years



I'll throw the flag   By law, the maximum one can receive under CSRS is 80%, so you cannot be receiving anything greater.  Not to mention that to achieve 80% one would have to have spent 42 years 11 months of service.


----------



## Radiant1

DoWhat said:


> Sorry, but that is one stupid a$$ comment.



Maybe, maybe not. What job do you suppose vince77 did to be entitled to 100 grand/year retirement at taxpayers expense? All I can say is, I hope he worked his ass off and his fingers to the bone.


----------



## DoWhat

Radiant1 said:


> Maybe, maybe not. What job do you suppose vince77 did to be entitled to 100 grand/year retirement at taxpayers expense? All I can say is, I hope he worked his ass off and his fingers to the bone.



I think you are just jealous.


Would you feel different if he was receiving his pension from the private sector?


----------



## Radiant1

DoWhat said:


> I think you are just jealous.



Yes and no. 



DoWhat said:


> Would you feel different if he was receiving his pension from the private sector?



Yep, because his 100 grand/year retirement wouldn't come from the backs of taxpayers.


----------



## DoWhat

Radiant1 said:


> Yep, because his 100 grand/year retirement wouldn't come from the backs of taxpayers.



Do you look at the Government as a business?


----------



## Radiant1

DoWhat said:


> Do you look at the Government as a business?



Yes and no. Truly, if it were run like a business we wouldn't be in debt to the extent we are, and I wouldn't be fussing about handouts and things like excessive retirement benefits.


----------



## DoWhat

Radiant1 said:


> Yes and no. Truly, if it were run like a business we wouldn't be in debt to the extent we are, and I wouldn't be fussing about handouts and things like excessive retirement benefits.



If someone retired from Boeing or any other company, did any of your tax dollars contribute to his/her retirement?


----------



## Radiant1

DoWhat said:


> If someone retired from Boeing or any other company, did any of your tax dollars contribute to his/her retirement?



Unless you know something that I don't know Boeing is a contractor hired by the gov't; however, it's a private company so my taxes do not go directly to pay Boeing employee's retirement, but rather employee funds/investments do.


----------



## DoWhat

Radiant1 said:


> Unless you know something that I don't know Boeing is a contractor hired by the gov't; however, it's a private company so my taxes do not go directly to pay Boeing employee's retirement, but rather employee funds/investments do.



If someone retired from Food Lion, your taxes did not help fund his retirement?


----------



## Radiant1

DoWhat said:


> If someone retired from Food Lion, your taxes did not help fund his retirement?



I'm not referring to SS, DoWhat, so no.


----------



## DoWhat

Radiant1 said:


> I'm not referring to SS, DoWhat, so no.



Nothing to do with SS.

What about all the people on welfare that get free food?
Didn't your taxes help them get free food and Food Lion profited from your taxes for the people that got the free food?


----------



## Radiant1

DoWhat said:


> Nothing to do with SS.
> 
> What about all the people on welfare that get free food?
> Didn't your taxes help them get free food and Food Lion profited from your taxes for the people that got the free food?



Yep, and if you've read the whole thread you'd know I'm all for cutting handouts as well.

Are we done here? Because I have some things I need to do. If you actually have a point, I'll read it later.


----------



## DoWhat

Radiant1 said:


> Yep, and if you've read the whole thread you'd know I'm all for cutting handouts as well.
> 
> Are we done here? Because I have some things I need to do. If you actually have a point, I'll read it later.



I did all my chores yesterday.


----------



## PsyOps

I didn’t read every post but military receive a retirement pension because that is the agreement they entered into when they joined and decided to retire.  It’s an incentive for some to make the military a career.  If we have no career military we have no continuity of force.  Retirement pensions offer that incentive.  Many private companies offer retirement pensions that they collect when they’ve served so many years.  This is completely separate for a 401k, IRA, TSA, or SS.


----------



## DoWhat

PsyOps said:


> I didn’t read every post but military receive a retirement pension because that is the agreement they entered into when they joined .



Sad thing is, is that the military is kicking people out at 15 years of service.


----------



## thurley42

Radiant1 said:


> Unless you know something that I don't know Boeing is a contractor hired by the gov't; however, it's a private company so my taxes do not go directly to pay Boeing employee's retirement, but rather employee funds/investments do.



Where do you think they get their funding from?


----------



## vince77

Radiant1 said:


> I'm not trying to denigrate your hard work, but I find this ridiculous. Are my taxes seriously going towards paying 100 grand/year for your retirement!? Would you be like Monello and consider taking a reduction if there were cuts to entitlements as well?
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it's situations like this that make some people think there is another side to "entitlements" when someone works for the gov't all their life and doesn't necessarily work any harder than someone in the private sector but seems to reap greater benefits from it.



no offense taken..it is a good retirement for a government schelp.. I never killed myself at work....if I live to 80, collecting this for 25 years would equal 2.5 million dollars in retirement income for me -in terms of reductions, I'll reduce  when/if  the government changes the law, just like everyone else.

CSRS employees are a dying breed, any one hired after 1983 went into the FERS.  So eventually the program will end. The government tried to hard sell  CSRS employees to switch to FERS in the late 80's.  I didn't bite, many did.

I remember the days when federal employees pay and benefits were not as good as the private sectors. Probably the most egregious part of my situation was working part-time as a teenager and getting full time credit for it 35 years later, but that's the law.  I consider myself very fortunate when I see defined benefit pensions tossed away today.  My kids think it's absurd too..


----------



## JoeR

vince77 said:


> no offense taken..it is a good retirement for a government schelp.. I never killed myself at work....if I live to 80, collecting this for 25 years would equal 2.5 million dollars in retirement income for me -in terms of reductions, I'll reduce  when/if  the government changes the law, just like everyone else.
> 
> CSRS employees are a dying breed, any one hired after 1983 went into the FERS.  So eventually the program will end. The government tried to hard sell  CSRS employees to switch to FERS in the late 80's.  I didn't bite, many did.
> 
> I remember the days when federal employees pay and benefits were not as good as the private sectors. Probably the most egregious part of my situation was working part-time as a teenager and getting full time credit for it 35 years later, but that's the law.  I consider myself very fortunate when I see defined benefit pensions tossed away today.  My kids think it's absurd too..



So vince77 how muh of that Gov't. retirement is tax free? I think one of the biggest misconceptions is that government and retired military aren't paying taxes on our retirements. One thing I always say when someone says  their taxes are paying my retirement. I say, well so are the taxes being taken from my AF retirement check that are going towards my own retirement check.


----------



## Radiant1

thurley42 said:


> Where do you think they get their funding from?



I know where they get their funding from, but that doesn't directly pay a Boeing employee's retirement. I assume they, like everyone else, has a 401K that relies on investments and not taken directly from taxpayers. It's not the same thing, thurley.



vince77 said:


> no offense taken..it is a good retirement for a government schelp.. I never killed myself at work....if I live to 80, collecting this for 25 years would equal 2.5 million dollars in retirement income for me -in terms of reductions, I'll reduce  when/if  the government changes the law, just like everyone else.



Thank you for being honest and reasonable about it, I appreciate that.


----------



## PsyOps

DoWhat said:


> Sad thing is, is that the military is kicking people out at 15 years of service.



This happens from time to time.  Usually they give people the option offering an incentive to take a large check at 15 years.  I'm not aware for a current plan to kick people out at 15.


----------



## DoWhat

Radiant1 said:


> I know where they get their funding from, but that doesn't directly pay a Boeing employee's retirement. I assume they, like everyone else, has a 401K that relies on investments and not taken directly from taxpayers. It's not the same thing, thurley.



The Government is a business.


----------



## somdforever

Misfit said:


> Stand down sparky. I asked because I didn't know. Most of the civil service I know are retired military and aren't concerened about the upcoming furlough because their civil service job is their second career but others I know don't have that retirement to fall back on. Do police and fireman collect at 65 also?



Actually, career firefighters (those who are paid for their service), have 20-25 year retirements, and they don't have to wait until they are 65.  Not sure why you are focused on 65, but guess you are think SS age, which in most cases now, is 66 or 67.  Police agencies are the same.  Like the military, they too can draw SS when they reach the SS retirement age(s).  Also like the military, not everyone is cut out or willing to do the jobs these 3 groups of folks do.


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

GWguy said:


> Says who?  I'm getting ready to retire and can collect my retirement bennies right away.  If you're talking about Social Security, THAT doesn't kick in until 65.  I can collect on my pension when I retire and turn 55.



You aren't victim of a penalty, retiring before you're 65, are you?
I know that retirement bennies are different than S.S.. I'm also guessing that there isn't a minimum age you have to reach before retiring.


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

GWguy said:


> For us, it's a 'magic number' of 85, _years of service plus age_.  I made that 3 years ago.



That just sounds like somebody's idea of a fancy math problem.
'Let's take these two numbers and add them together....."
Using that formula, my 'magic number' is a tad less though.

When you retired, was there a minimum age at which you could retire; or a penalty you would have to live with if you retired before the minimum retirement age? (Sorry, that sounded better in my head)

I have the time in; 25 year, this October; I just don't have the age yet.

From what I've read, I would have to stay in until I'm something like 57, to retire at the minimum retirement age, and _still_ have to eat a 2% penalty for retiring 8 years "early."


----------



## mAlice

CrashTest said:


> I've asked here before why the family members don't get a pension too.  My dad got to cruise the Med and visit cool places while my mom and sisters were back living in $hitholes in some foreign country (against our will) and like the vast mojority who serve, nobody ever shot a bullet at my dad in 31 years of service.



How is it that your family was forced to go to foreign countries?


----------



## Ken King

DEEKAYPEE8569 said:


> I have the time in; 25 year, this October; I just don't have the age yet.
> 
> From what I've read, I would have to stay in until I'm something like 57, to retire at the minimum retirement age, and _still_ have to eat a 2% penalty for retiring 8 years "early."





			
				OPM said:
			
		

> Age Reduction
> 
> If you have 10 or more years of service and are retiring at the Minimum Retirement Age, your annuity will be reduced for each month that you are under age 62. The reduction is 5% per year (5/12 of a percent per month). *However, your annuity will not be reduced if you completed at least 30 years of service, or if you completed at least 20 years of service and your annuity begins when you reach age 60.* You can reduce or eliminate this age reduction by postponing the beginning date of your annuity.


Okay, you have 25 years now, if you get to 30 years at or before you reach your MRA you should not see a reduction.


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

Ken King said:


> Okay, you have 25 years now, if you get to 30 years at or before you reach your MRA you should not see a reduction.



Five more years come this October; 49 years old in '18 :fingerscrossed:, if I did the math right.


----------



## Lurk

mAlice said:


> How is it that your family was forced to go to foreign countries?



When stationed overseas, the family has the option of staying behind while the military member lives overseas.  Don't know how much an enlisted member makes in housing for dependents and whether that is sufficient to keep them in adequate  housing.  

I have always believed the U.S. Navy's position is that if the active duty male ships out, the dependent wife is supposed to go home to her mother until he is back in the States.  That is based on the quality of on-base enlisted housing evident until the past 10-15 years.


----------



## CrashTest

mAlice said:


> How is it that your family was forced to go to foreign countries?



When you're 6 years old, you lack the wherewithall to live by yourself.  You kinda have to live where your dad tells you to live and share some of the sacrifice right along with him, even if it's a $hithole like Keflavik Iceland.


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

Lurk said:


> When stationed overseas, the family has the option of staying behind while the military member lives overseas.  Don't know how much an enlisted member makes in housing for dependents and whether that is sufficient to keep them in adequate  housing.
> 
> I have always believed the U.S. Navy's position is that _if the active duty male ships out, the dependent wife is supposed to go home to her mother until he is back in the States.  That is based on the quality of on-base enlisted housing evident until the past 10-15 years_.



What is the Navy's position on both parents being active duty? Who or what decides who is deployed and who isn't? Surely both parents; of young children mind you; would not be deployed at the same time.


----------



## mAlice

CrashTest said:


> When you're 6 years old, you lack the wherewithall to live by yourself.  You kinda have to live where your dad tells you to live and share some of the sacrifice right along with him, even if it's a $hithole like Keflavik Iceland.



Seriously?  I lived in Keflavik for 2.5 years.  Even the ####hole housing wasn't as bad as you make it out to be, and Iceland in general is a beautiful country, with very friendly people, and so much to do you couldn't possibly do it all in one tour.  You sound very bitter.


----------



## mAlice

Lurk said:


> I have always believed the U.S. Navy's position is that if the active duty male ships out, the dependent wife is supposed to go home to her mother until he is back in the States.  That is based on the quality of on-base enlisted housing evident until the past 10-15 years.



It depends on how long the active duty member will be gone.  I did a 6 month separation while we were stationed in Spain, but it was because I chose to. What do you mean by the quality of on-base housing?  And why would the dependent wife go home to mother?


----------



## Ken King

DEEKAYPEE8569 said:


> Five more years come this October; 49 years old in '18 :fingerscrossed:, if I did the math right.


You still have to reach your MRA of 57 to receive an immediate annuity.


----------



## CrashTest

mAlice said:


> Seriously?  I lived in Keflavik for 2.5 years.  Even the ####hole housing wasn't as bad as you make it out to be, and Iceland in general is a beautiful country, with very friendly people, and so much to do you couldn't possibly do it all in one tour.  You sound very bitter.



You probably didn't live there in 1962.  And I'm sure it is a beautiful country but in the early 60's, service members and their families were basically confined to the base.  The Icelandic Gov was 67% Communist back then and that's how they wanted it.

And I'm not bitter at all.  It's just that service members usually mention family when talking about sacrafice but never mention family when talking about who deserves the pension.  I'm just pointing that out.


----------



## vince77

Ken King said:


> I'll throw the flag   By law, the maximum one can receive under CSRS is 80%, so you cannot be receiving anything greater.  Not to mention that to achieve 80% one would have to have spent 42 years 11 months of service.



LEO fed retirement...

2.5% per year...30 years.....75%

16 hour a week fed job while in high school 2.5% per year.....2 years.....5%

thats 80%......then if you have a cache of S/L it counts toward more service when computing retirement, I had a bunch....thats brings you over 80% +

not unusual for those receiving COLA's every year to eventually equal 100% of what they earned working..

I have a friend that has a similar retirement that works at a golf course 8 months a year and collects unemployment for 4 months every year..on top of this retirement I have...

I understand why people get mad......


----------



## Lurk

mAlice said:


> It depends on how long the active duty member will be gone.  I did a 6 month separation while we were stationed in Spain, but it was because I chose to. What do you mean by the quality of on-base housing?  And why would the dependent wife go home to mother?



Until the recent construction of enlisted housing on NRL (talking 10-12 years ago now) the houses I drove past every weekday for six years were 1-2 bedroom bungalows on concrete-block foundations.  Tiny, poorly maintained shanties.

On base enlisted housing on numerous Army posts are hardly better.  However, the Pentagon wised-up and allowed commercial housing developers onto the base and post to rebuild, maintain, and fill on-base housing.  However, it turns out that so many military are being RIF'd, on-base housing is now being offered for military retired and contractors.


----------



## MMM_donuts

CrashTest said:


> You probably didn't live there in 1962.  And I'm sure it is a beautiful country but in the early 60's, service members and their families were basically confined to the base.  The Icelandic Gov was 67% Communist back then and that's how they wanted it.
> 
> And I'm not bitter at all.  It's just that service members usually mention family when talking about sacrafice but never mention family when talking about who deserves the pension.  I'm just pointing that out.




I never lived in Kef but I spent a fair amount of time there in the earlier part of this century.  I did not love it.  It was ok but I would not want to live there.  Especially if you were confined to the base.


----------



## Ken King

vince77 said:


> LEO fed retirement...
> 
> 2.5% per year...30 years.....75%
> 
> 16 hour a week fed job while in high school 2.5% per year.....2 years.....5%
> 
> thats 80%......then if you have a cache of S/L it counts toward more service when computing retirement, I had a bunch....thats brings you over 80% +
> 
> not unusual for those receiving COLA's every year to eventually equal 100% of what they earned working..
> 
> I have a friend that has a similar retirement that works at a golf course 8 months a year and collects unemployment for 4 months every year..on top of this retirement I have...
> 
> I understand why people get mad......


You're still wrong as CSRS is capped at 80% by law and you can't get anything greater.  

Special retirement rules for LEO/firefighter/nuclear material couriers/Supreme Court Police/Capitol Police are that for your first 20 years of LEO service you get 2.5% per year and all remaining service (including unused sick leave) is calculated at 2% per year.

So based on your claimed years of service you would get 50% for your first 20 years, 26.6 % for your remaining 13.3 years (10.8 LEO and 2.5 in the post office) and then whatever your sick leave was (which for 33.3 years could be no greater than an adjustment of 1.2 years if you never used a single hour of sick leave in your career) for nothing greater than an additional 2.4%.  That still leaves you below 80%, damn close and a great retirement, but not over the legal maximum set by law.


----------



## vince77

Unused sick leave isn’t subject to the 80 percent limit on an earned annuity. Unused actual service hours are added to unused sick leave hours to create additional months (and even years) of credit in the annuity calculation.


----------



## Ken King

vince77 said:


> Unused sick leave isn’t subject to the 80 percent limit on an earned annuity. Unused actual service hours are added to unused sick leave hours to create additional months (and even years) of credit in the annuity calculation.



I'm aware of that, but it didn't apply in your case as you aren't getting higher than 80%.


----------



## So_what

CrashTest said:


> You probably didn't live there in 1962.  And I'm sure it is a beautiful country but in the early 60's, service members and their families were basically confined to the base.  The Icelandic Gov was 67% Communist back then and that's how they wanted it.



I will admit I wasn't there in 1962 but did spend many years in Iceland. The main reason service members were restricted to the base was WWII. It was a stop over for just about every American going overseas during the war. In effect there were more Americans (foreigners) on their island than Icelandics and they didn't like that. It took them a long time to get over that. IIRC it wasn't until 1970's-80's that "blacks" were allowed to be stationed there.
The Icelandic government has many different political parties but I never heard of it being 67% Communist. :shrug:


----------



## StadEMS3

So_what said:


> I will admit I wasn't there in 1962 but did spend many years in Iceland. The main reason service members were restricted to the base was WWII. It was a stop over for just about every American going overseas during the war. In effect there were more Americans (foreigners) on their island than Icelandics and they didn't like that. It took them a long time to get over that. IIRC it wasn't until 1970's-80's that "blacks" were allowed to be stationed there.
> The Icelandic government has many different political parties but I never heard of it being 67% Communist. :shrug:



I was stationed there 92-94 and was told "blacks" were not allowed off base until only a few years earlier. Of course it didn't take long before a few of the locals were impregnated...


----------



## fastgto

This misfit guy seems to post a lot of passive aggressive material about the military.


----------



## Misfit

fastgto said:


> This misfit guy seems to post a lot of passive aggressive material about the military.



I try to post subjects that will encourage conversation and from 105 replies I think this one is a success.


----------



## philibusters

DoWhat said:


> I will have over 40 yrs government service when I retire, but it will be under the new government retirement system. Which is mainly based on your 401K.



FERS has three components but the biggest is probably the defined pension.  The pension is 1% for every year you worked for the federal government.  So if you worked for the gov't for 40 years your pension will be 40% of the average of your highest 3 years salary.   

The other two components are Social Security.  The social security component works the exact same as it does in the private sector both in respect to the how much comes out of the employees pay check each month for social security and what the benefit the employees gets back after they reach a certain age.

The last component is the TSP (which is like a 401K).   The gov't has up to a 5% match (thus prudently employees will contribute at least five percent of their salaries to take advantage of the match.  Less frugal employees who don't contribute to their TSP actually get no benefit from the TSP because you have to contribute in order to the get the match.


----------



## CrashTest

So_what said:


> I will admit I wasn't there in 1962 but did spend many years in Iceland. The main reason service members were restricted to the base was WWII. It was a stop over for just about every American going overseas during the war. In effect there were more Americans (foreigners) on their island than Icelandics and they didn't like that. It took them a long time to get over that. IIRC it wasn't until 1970's-80's that "blacks" were allowed to be stationed there.
> The Icelandic government has many different political parties but I never heard of it being 67% Communist. :shrug:



The first black service member was allowed in Iceland in the last half of 1963 (against the wishes of Navy Brass in country).  

In the years following WWII, American service members stationed in Iceland married about 5000 Icelandic women and took them back to the US.  This was a huge deal for a country with only 100,000 people and didn't sit well with the Icelandic Govt (which was majority Communist at the time).


----------



## Ken King

philibusters said:


> FERS has three components but the biggest is probably the defined pension.  *The pension is 1% for every year you worked for the federal government.*  So if you worked for the gov't for 40 years your pension will be 40% of the average of your highest 3 years salary.
> 
> The other two components are Social Security.  The social security component works the exact same as it does in the private sector both in respect to the how much comes out of the employees pay check each month for social security and what the benefit the employees gets back after they reach a certain age.
> 
> The last component is the TSP (which is like a 401K).   The gov't has up to a 5% match (thus prudently employees will contribute at least five percent of their salaries to take advantage of the match.  *Less frugal employees who don't contribute to their TSP actually get no benefit from the TSP* because you have to contribute in order to the get the match.


If 62 or over at retirement (and more than 20 years of service) the pension is 1.1% per year.  And for the TSP the agency automatically contributes 1% of your salary per pay period.


----------

